9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1973. 2. The petitioner's case is that the complaint was filed by the opposite party on 31st May, 2002. 3. That in the complaint, ITC Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 37, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata 700 071(hereinafter referred to as "the Company") was arraigned as Accused no. 1 and the petitioner herein was arraigned as accused no. 7. 4. The complaint was filed for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the Company under Section 56 of the Act. 5. The petitioner and other individuals working for the Company were made vicariously lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the violations allegedly committed by the company in terms of Section 68 of the FERA, 1973, the said charges can be stated to have been proved only in such a situation where the charge against the main noticee have been proved and hence, no proceedings are warranted against the said noticees. Since, the charges against ITC Ltd. had been not proved, the charges against the individual notices also failed automatically." "75. Having regard to the findings and discussions hereinbefore, I hereby drop the proceedings against M/s. ITC Ltd., Noticee No. 1 in SCN No. T-4/18-C/97(SCN-XVIII) dated 31.3.1998 as the charges against the company in the SCN under consideration have not been proved on the basis of material evidences. Consequent upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst all the accuseds, including the petitioner. 13. It is submitted that criminal proceedings cannot continue against the individual, in light of the fact that, in the civil proceedings, the enforcement directorate found the allegations of contravention of the Act by the company and the individual noticees to be without merit. 14. However, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, took notice of the aforesaid judgment of this Hon'ble Court and by an order dated 27th August, 2012, discharged only the Company, but not the remaining accuseds, including the petitioner. The said complaint case is still continuing and is coming up for hearing from time to time. 15. That the Complaint has now been pending for 17 years aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same attained finality as far back as 11 years ago. As such, any continuation of the complaint under section 68 of the Act would amount to abuse of the process of law. 17. That it may be apposite to state that under similar circumstances, this Hon'ble Court quashed case No. C-2479/2002 initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against the Company and the petitioner by its Judgment dated 10th November, 2010 in CRR No. 1174/2004. In that criminal complaint, the Company, along with individuals working for the Company such as the Petitioner, were prosecuted under Section 56 read with Section 68 of the Act for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) and 9(1) (a) of the Act. On the basis of the said alleged contravention, a civil proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er similar circumstances, had quashed case No. C-2479/2002 initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against the Company and the individuals accused, including the Petitioner, by its order dated 10th November, 2010 in CRR 1174 of 2004. Even in that case, both civil and criminal proceedings were initiated by the Enforcement. 22. The petitioner has been exonerated based on evidence from all charges of contravention by the Enforcement Directorate, and continuance of the complaint against him is oppressive and is an abuse of the process of law. 23. The continuation of the said complaint is clearly harassing in nature and is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 24. The impugned proceeding before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SPECIAL DIRECTOR 27. The company/accused no. 1 ITC Limited preferred a revision being CRR no. 1891 of 2004 before this court and in view of order dated 30.04.2008 of the Special Director, ED, the court quashed the proceedings in respect of the company alone, (the sole petitioner before it). 28. The Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, in view of the order of the Hon'ble Court in CRR 1891 of 2004, discharged the accused/company alone, who was the sole petitioner therein, but directed that the case would proceed against the other accused persons. 29. It is seen that the order in revision CRR 1891 of 2004 only states about the company (petitioner before it) and not the other accused persons (notices) (not before the Court). 30. Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
